Rents, debts and the cost of living...

olly300

antrobus wrote: »

I believe that was one of Mr Blair's little reforms - anyone can indeed put their name down.

He's gone back to how it was then.

I've met OAPs who use to live in council housing.

Monkeyballs

Basically I have learned that paying more on a place in which Im happy to stay is cheaper than a cheap place which I dont want to stay home in...

Lol, a bit of sun and its bbq time! Lots of cheap disposable bbqs with lots of beer and vodka bottles all of which leads to shouting fights and general agro... Something Im not proud of as being a representation of York!

I dont mind paying my way but I do feel that someone with a local connection should get priority over those who arent...

With regards to my earnings and whether I should be entitled to social housing, I currently earn £24.5k per year which is less than the "national average" and if you listen to what the cap of benefits for a single person should be then Im on par with that...

All I would like is a place of my own for which I am responsible which I would pay for in my own home town. Is that too much or should I be on benefits beforehand?

:-) MB

CLAPTON

dori2o wrote: »

I personally don't see the problem.

IF I didn't have my own home I would much rather be paying into the coffers of the local economy than paying off someones mortgage.

The situation with the value of rents in social housing is another matter. They are not so much subsidised, they are merely set at a value in which the rent provides for all the needs. Unlike in a private let there is no interest/mortgage for the council to pay on their properties.

Surely however much the tennant earns is irrelevant so long as they look after the property, pay the rent on time and don't cause trouble.

Is it not better for the council to be claiming a rent rather than having a property where the tennant is not paying the rent (housing benefit)?

The ternnant has no right to the property, they can't take it with them, it has no value to them, once they leave/die etc the council takes the property back.

Is it the fault of people with good incomes that private rents have ballooned to obscene amounts? Should they, or others regardless of their financial circumstances, be punished for the increase in the cost of rents in the private sector?

What about someone who is allocated a house when unemployed etc, then gets a job and starts to earn good money? Should they be told to leave when their income reaches £20k/£40k/£60k/£100k?

People have forgotten what social housing was built for.

If you are advocating that the taxpayer should build sufficient property so that anyone that wants to rent can do so within the public sector?

do you think that governments are good at running large projects and managing large portfolios of property?

within a short time government would be a monopoly supplier of rental properties; would that be a good thing?

bodmil

But if you didn't have debts £25k would be more than enough to get a place of your own. Can't you sacrifice your standard of redidence for a period of time to get yourself out of debt for once and for all? Why not put up an SOA on the DFW section and take control and get what you want?

Monkeyballs

Hi Bodmil,

All in the plan... Long term I would like to buy my own place.

In the short term I do what I must, my work is stressful enough without coming home to somewhere I simply don't want to be in.

To put £550 (which includes all bills) into context, an average small single room is currently about £120 less pcm inclusive so that extra means I have room and can stop my brain from exploding! Plus it means my gf can stay over a couple of nights per week... York is an expensive place to live and as a local, I know the places I dont want to live which are often cheaper for obvious reasons.

MB

MacMickster

Monkeyballs wrote: »

Hi Bodmil,

All in the plan... Long term I would like to buy my own place.

In the short term I do what I must, my work is stressful enough without coming home to somewhere I simply don't want to be in.

To put £550 (which includes all bills) into context, an average small single room is currently about £120 less pcm inclusive so that extra means I have room and can stop my brain from exploding! Plus it means my gf can stay over a couple of nights per week... York is an expensive place to live and as a local, I know the places I dont want to live which are often cheaper for obvious reasons.

MB

OP. I fear that you have definitely ventured onto the wrong board. I doubt that you will find anyone on here who doesn't feel that you should be able to live very comfortably on your income.

I see from your other posts that you have previously been bankrupt, and are now trying to arrange a debt management plan in respect of your current debts.

As far as living in a nice part of town, that is all well and good IF you have the money to do so. You need to get control of your spending before complaining about others getting social housing ahead of you, and be prepared to live like a pauper until you have cleared your debts and begun saving regularly.

As others have already suggested, there are other boards on this site where good people will provide you with advice on how to achieve this.

Good luck.

olly300

Monkeyballs wrote: »

Hi Bodmil,

All in the plan... Long term I would like to buy my own place.

In the short term I do what I must, my work is stressful enough without coming home to somewhere I simply don't want to be in.

You presume cheaper equals much worse - not necessarily.

One problem about staying local to the area you were brought up in is that you don't explore what is nearby.

Monkeyballs

Hi again,

Honestly, I dont feel that I am in a particularly bad position at this point in time as I have a good job, money coming in, a fab gf... This was never my point.

Im not looking for sympathy or guidance, hence not posting on the DFWB forum :-)

I will have my finances under control soon as I have started to get counselling for a number of issues I have - the majority of my debt is from spending on other people and some gambling due to stress and depression... Im getting there though...

Point is this - social housing, we need more of it and for more consideration to be given to those local Joe Averages who gets up, goes to work, pays his way through life and should think himself lucky to just be getting by...

bodmil

You're far from an average joe, you're earning a very good amount. And social housing shouldn't be for the average joe either. Don't be so hard on yourself.

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

If you are advocating that the taxpayer should build sufficient property so that anyone that wants to rent can do so within the public sector?

Well, that was pretty much what governments did in the 1950s and 1960s.

CLAPTON wrote: »

...do you think that governments are good at running large projects and managing large portfolios of property?

Well, the British government has (in the past) succeeded in winning a number of wars which could be regarded as pretty 'large projects'.

On the other hand, I do know that some councils were really carp at running their portfolios. Well at least, that's what I've been told by people who've run HAs that took em over. But then a lot of BTL landlords appear to be carp at running their portfolios.

CLAPTON wrote: »

...
within a short time government would be a monopoly supplier of rental properties; would that be a good thing?

Depends on what you think the monopoly supplier would do with their monopoly, I imagine.